Nothing there that hasn’t been widely known in the aviation community for decades. Whilst beefing up the v-tail structure was certainly eminently sensible, as it says most of the in-flight break-ups were due to continued VFR flight into IMC, flying through thunderstorms and airframe icing, conditions that have led to plenty of other types exceeding their VNE/loss of control and breaking up in flight.
Ok !
This is what wiki has to say about it;
In the late 1980s, repeated V-tail structural failures prompted the United States Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to conduct extensive wind tunnel and flight tests, which proved that the V-tail did not meet type certification standards under certain conditions; the effort culminated with the issuance of an airworthiness directive to strengthen the tail, which significantly reduced the incidence of in-flight breakups. Despite this, Beech has long contended that most V-tail failures involve operations well beyond the aircraft’s intended flight envelope.[18][19] Subsequent analysis of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident records between 1962 and 2007 revealed an average of three V-tail structural failures per year, while the conventional-tailed Bonanza 33 and 36 suffered only eleven such failures during the same time period. Most V-tail failures involved flight under visual flight rules into instrument meteorological conditions, flight into thunderstorms, or airframe icing.[20] In addition to the structural issues, the Bonanza 35 has a relatively narrow center of gravity envelope, and the tail design is intolerant of imbalances caused by damage, improper maintenance, or repainting; such imbalances may induce dangerous aeroelastic flutter.[18] Despite these issues, many Bonanza 35 owners insist that the aircraft is reasonably safe, and its reputation has lessened acquisition costs for budget-conscious buyers.[20]
I am after a extremely efficient design that is also safe. I figure V-tail is underestimated.
Sign In
